Technology System E-Mail Archive

[Richard Bruns]

Well that was before u told me u wanted the seperated. As far as them
being similar, the really aren't. Atomic deals with, well atoms and similar particles. Electromagnetics deals with electricity and magnetism.
---
All atomic interactions are governed by the electroweak and strong nuclear forces. And electrons are a fundamental part of atoms. These two things are similar enough. Think of the many different disciplines that are all grouped under 'Biology.' A tech called, 'Electromagnetism and Atomic Physics' would be perfectly reasonable.
---
The way i had it was that for combined arms it would simply take the
relevant areas and average them out.
---
A good combined arms force is many times more powerful than the sum of its parts. The ability to tactically coordinate many different types of units is very important in modern combat. Averaging just will not work. But if there was only one tactics tech to begin with, it would already cover all of this with minimum complexity.

[Richard Bruns]

> Well that was before u told me u wanted the seperated. As far as them
> being similar, the really aren't. Atomic deals with, well atoms and
similar
> particles. Electromagnetics deals with electricity and magnetism.
> ---
> All atomic interactions are governed by the electroweak and strong nuclear
> forces. And electrons are a fundamental part of atoms. These two things
> are similar enough. Think of the many different disciplines that are all
> grouped under 'Biology.' A tech called, 'Electromagnetism and Atomic
> Physics' would be perfectly reasonable.

Acutally its not for one reason. Like i said there are 4 forces which
science has devised. 1> Gavity: represented by mechanics 2> Electromagnetic
spectrum, rep by obviously elelctomagnetics 3> Lesser atomic force and 4>
greater atomic force. The last 2 are being worked on to make them one
single one currently. Also for game play only atomic would be ness, but
linking it with electromagnetic would make as much sence then as linking
electromagnetic with mechanics

> The way i had it was that for combined arms it would simply take the
> relevant areas and average them out.
> ---
> A good combined arms force is many times more powerful than the sum of its
> parts. The ability to tactically coordinate many different types of units
> is very important in modern combat. Averaging just will not work. But if
> there was only one tactics tech to begin with, it would already cover all
of
> this with minimum complexity.

Hmm your right about both parts. First off if there was one tactics, from
what was discussed earlier, it is just to broad and doesn't really account
for a british vs germany in WWII where the british had good naval tactics
(well the germans did too but not as good), but the germans had a far
superior air tactics than the british and were able to almost defeat them
because of the superior air tactic (and technology and other stuff). On the
first part you are only partly correct. If I have 97 on land tactics and 13
on air and try to used a combined forces attack with those two elements it
won't be as successful as if i planned a pure land assult.

[Richard Bruns]

Acutally its not for one reason. Like i said there are 4 forces which
science has devised. 1> Gavity: represented by mechanics 2>
Electromagnetic spectrum, rep by obviously elelctomagnetics 3> Lesser atomic force and 4> greater atomic force. The last 2 are being worked on to make them one single one currently. Also for game play only atomic would be ness, but linking it with electromagnetic would make as much sence then as linking electromagnetic with mechanics
---
The electric force and the weak nuclear force have already been united into the electroweak force. I know that electromagnetism is slightly different than nuclear forces, but they are studied at the same labs and similar equipment and theories are used to describe and study them. Electromagnetism and Atomic/Particle Physics are similar enough to be in one tech.
Think of Biology, which we agree should be one tech. Biology includes many fields of study that are vastly different from each other. For example, everything from the study of a virus that infects corn and the effects of exercise on the human body are all included in Biology. Any scientist would tell you that these things have almost nothing to do with each other, yet for simplicity we were forced to put them into one tech. The same is true for these two similar fields of Physics studies.
---
Hmm your right about both parts. First off if there was one tactics,
from what was discussed earlier, it is just to broad and doesn't really
account for a british vs germany in WWII where the british had good naval
tactics (well the germans did too but not as good), but the germans had a far superior air tactics than the british and were able to almost defeat
them because of the superior air tactic (and technology and other stuff). On the first part you are only partly correct. If I have 97 on land tactics and 13 on air and try to used a combined forces attack with those two elements it won't be as successful as if i planned a pure land assult.
---
Sorry, the Germans had inferior air tactics for the entire war. In the Battle of Britian, the British air force held off the Germans despite the fact that they were badly outnumbered. The British use of radar, combined the Germans' idiotic failure to attack British air bases, meant that the British air force was far more effective than the Garman Luftwaffe.
And in the example you gave, the combined force would be far more effective than a simple infantry attack. If I have even a low level of airplanes and you have none at all, I will win. I would simply have my planes fly over and bomb your supply lines, bases, and troop concentrations. This is one of the things that let the Germans storm through Europe in WW2.
But that isn't really relevant. The point is that the same basic tactical principles apply to all kinds of combat and that a combination of forces is more effective than the sum of its parts. Anyway, we shouldn't be deciding this. We should ask the military people to tell us what to do with the military techs. I have studied military history extensively and written two research papers on these military topics, but I don't know the demands of the military model so I shouldn't be deciding this.

[Richard Bruns]

> The electric force and the weak nuclear force have already been united
> into the electroweak force. I know that electromagnetism is slightly
> different than nuclear forces, but they are studied at the same labs and
> similar equipment and theories are used to describe and study them.
> Electromagnetism and Atomic/Particle Physics are similar enough to be in
one
> tech.
> Think of Biology, which we agree should be one tech. Biology includes
> many fields of study that are vastly different from each other. For
> example, everything from the study of a virus that infects corn and the
> effects of exercise on the human body are all included in Biology. Any
> scientist would tell you that these things have almost nothing to do with
> each other, yet for simplicity we were forced to put them into one tech.
> The same is true for these two similar fields of Physics studies.

Then we would also have to combine mechanics and electromagnetics because
although like u pointed out they do represent completely differnt aspects,
they do have some similarities with each other, just as much as atomic and
electomagnetics do.

On another note, I've decided to drop genetics because its just a more
"advanced" form of biology and whatever can be represented in genetics can
be done in biology.

[Richard Bruns]

Then we would also have to combine mechanics and electromagnetics because
although like u pointed out they do represent completely differnt aspects,
they do have some similarities with each other, just as much as atomic and
electomagnetics do.
---
The difference here is that mechanics and electromagnetics do different things, while electromagnetics and atomic studies, like biology, do the same general thing. We should be thinking in terms of what something does, not what it is.
---
On another note, I've decided to drop genetics because its just a more
"advanced" form of biology and whatever can be represented in genetics can
be done in biology.
---
OK
-
The tech tree looks good overall. A few concerns:
Atomics--Again, I don't see why it should be a different tech.
Computers--Optical computing will probably come in the near future, say 125%
Gaming--What is this and what does it do?
Psychology--Why would this have ecology as a prerequisite?
Water Transportation--Shouldn't it switch to EM at 120% like the other transportations?

[Richard Bruns]

> Then we would also have to combine mechanics and electromagnetics because
> although like u pointed out they do represent completely differnt aspects,
> they do have some similarities with each other, just as much as atomic and
> electomagnetics do.
> ---
> The difference here is that mechanics and electromagnetics do different
> things, while electromagnetics and atomic studies, like biology, do the
same
> general thing. We should be thinking in terms of what something does, not
> what it is.

For the game it really won't. Atomics will have to do with mainly atomic
power and some with quantum physics/mechanics but not much.

> The tech tree looks good overall. A few concerns:
> Atomics--Again, I don't see why it should be a different tech.
> Computers--Optical computing will probably come in the near future, say
125%

Well can u tell me what optical computers are. Also there's going to
perhaps be even more types, FE liquid storage computers, organic computers,
etc.

> Gaming--What is this and what does it do?

Basically represent the level and types of games/sports the civ has.

> Psychology--Why would this have ecology as a prerequisite?

The reason is, in order to understand ones mind (psycholgically) and how it
works, u need to know about the rest of the body and how people interact
with others in there enviroment.

> Water Transportation--Shouldn't it switch to EM at 120% like the other
> transportations?

I'm not sure because it wouldn't really help in development with submarines
and such.

Also on the note of submarines, I'm wondering if someone had something like
a subsand cruiser would that be under land transportation?

BTW Medicine vanished by accident.

[Richard Bruns]

For the game it really won't. Atomics will have to do with mainly atomic
power and some with quantum physics/mechanics but not much.
---
I understand now. Atomics is an application tech for nukes and power, not a basic theoretical tech like I thought it was. In that form it is okay.
---
Well can u tell me what optical computers are. Also there's going to
perhaps be even more types, FE liquid storage computers, organic computers,
etc.
---
Optical computers are computers that process data using light and lasers instead of electrons. Right now they only use optics to transmit data via fiber optics and store it on CD's and DVD's, but they are currently working on ways to make transistors and other computer components using optical fibers. If they do this, computers will be much faster and incredibly energy efficient, as well as impossible to disrupt. Currently, computers installed on military equipment can be fried with EMP pulses, but optical computers are immune to such jamming.
The other computer types you mentioned are not in the near future like optical computing. They belong in the far future tech tree. The difference between near and far future techs is that near future techs are a simple extension of the current tree, but far future stuff is so different that it will need a new tree.
---
Basically represent the level and types of games/sports the civ has.
---
OK. In that case, it should be a helper prerequisite for the military tactics technologies. It could also improve the overall health and intellegence of the people because they are exercising and/or thinking more.
---
> Psychology--Why would this have ecology as a prerequisite?

The reason is, in order to understand ones mind (psycholgically) and how it
works, u need to know about the rest of the body and how people interact
with others in there enviroment.
---
Rather than being a necessity, I think it should only be a helper. You can learn about human behavior without knowing a thing about animals. Machiavelli did not know a thing about animals, but he wrote eloquently about the psychology of being an effective leader.
---
> Water Transportation--Shouldn't it switch to EM at 120% like the other
> transportations?

I'm not sure because it wouldn't really help in development with submarines
and such.
---
EM motion would be an enormous asset in sea combat. A sub that could move by manipulating magnetic fields would be incredibly stealthy and fast. And the same tech that lets you hover over land would let you make a hovercraft that hovers over water.
---
Also on the note of submarines, I'm wondering if someone had something like
a subsand cruiser would that be under land transportation?
---
Far future maybe, but nothing like that would be possible or even conceivable using current or near future technology. If it did happen, it would just be a special type of land unit. Anyway, the tactical advantages of such a craft would be almost nil. It would be easy to detect and you could counter it with simple underground mines.
---
BTW Medicine vanished by accident.
---
OK. Could you send it to me so I could add it to the list?

[Richard Bruns]

> For the game it really won't. Atomics will have to do with mainly atomic
> power and some with quantum physics/mechanics but not much.
> ---
> I understand now. Atomics is an application tech for nukes and
> power, not a basic theoretical tech like I thought it was. In that form
it
> is okay.

Glad we got that settled.


> The other computer types you mentioned are not in the near future
> like optical computing. They belong in the far future tech tree. The
> difference between near and far future techs is that near future techs are
a
> simple extension of the current tree, but far future stuff is so different
> that it will need a new tree.

Hmm...just thought of two that need to be added:
Robotics
Prerequisite: 0-74% Electronics (30%), Mechanics (60%) **Machinery**
75-X% Computers (70%), Mechanics (60%)
Cybernetics
Prerequisite: 0-X% Biology (85%), Robotics (90%)

Add mettallurgy to electronics, ness specific prereq of copper production

> Rather than being a necessity, I think it should only be a helper. You
can
> learn about human behavior without knowing a thing about animals.
> Machiavelli did not know a thing about animals, but he wrote eloquently
> about the psychology of being an effective leader.
> ---
OK

> > Water Transportation--Shouldn't it switch to EM at 120% like the other
> > transportations?
>
> I'm not sure because it wouldn't really help in development with
submarines
> and such.
> ---
> EM motion would be an enormous asset in sea combat. A sub that could move
> by manipulating magnetic fields would be incredibly stealthy and fast.
And
> the same tech that lets you hover over land would let you make a
hovercraft
> that hovers over water.

OK

> Also on the note of submarines, I'm wondering if someone had something
like
> a subsand cruiser would that be under land transportation?
> ---
> Far future maybe, but nothing like that would be possible or even
> conceivable using current or near future technology. If it did happen,
it
> would just be a special type of land unit. Anyway, the tactical
advantages
> of such a craft would be almost nil. It would be easy to detect and you
> could counter it with simple underground mines.
> ---
> BTW Medicine vanished by accident.
> ---
> OK. Could you send it to me so I could add it to the list?

Medicine
Prerequisite: 10-X% Biology 10%

[Richard Bruns]

Hmm...just thought of two that need to be added:
Robotics
Prerequisite: 0-74% Electronics (30%), Mechanics (60%) **Machinery**
75-X% Computers (70%), Mechanics (60%)
Cybernetics
Prerequisite: 0-X% Biology (85%), Robotics (90%)
---
These two techs and things like them were things that I worked to eliminate in the tech model. They are not needed. There will only be a few applications of Robotics or Cybernetics, and each one of those applications can be given prerequisites directly from the basic techs. Just think of all possible applications of these that you wanted to include. Every one of these, and I'm guessing that there won't be many, can easily be traced back to the techs in the current chart. For Example: Factory Robots: Electronics 60%, Mechanics 60%, Industrial Engineering
If you are thinking of something that cannot be treated as a simple application like this, let me know. Otherwise I must recommend leaving these techs out.

By the way, Industrial Engineering should not have mechanics as a prerequisite at 0%. As I envisioned it, Industrial Engineering is not just factories. It is any activity that increases productivity. Machines in factories do not appear until about Industrial Engineering 30%. Until then, the tech should have no prerequisite, with economics as a helper.

A few other things:
How do you get Alchemy, Wheel, Glassworking, and Networks? You have them as the prerequisites for techs that provided these things in my model. I would recommend that Alchemy be synonimous with Chemistry 10-25%, Wheel come with Land Transportation 10%, Glassworking be Optics 1%, and Networks come with Communications 70%.

To avoid future confusion, can 'Atomics' be changed to 'Atomic Applications'?

I would recommend that Government have Communication and Psychology as helper techs.

Is Masonry the replacement for Brick/Cement/Stone?

--- New Mail ---

My social model stuff stored on the computers has vanished somehow. I will have to redo it, and it will have to be changed anyway, to fit the stuff you included in the tech tree you sent me. Sorry for the delay. It will basically be a concise write-up of what we discussed in e-mail about the Template Techs.

[Richard Bruns]

> Hmm...just thought of two that need to be added:
> Robotics
> Prerequisite: 0-74% Electronics (30%), Mechanics (60%) **Machinery**
> 75-X% Computers (70%), Mechanics (60%)
> Cybernetics
> Prerequisite: 0-X% Biology (85%), Robotics (90%)
> ---
> These two techs and things like them were things that I worked to
eliminate
> in the tech model. They are not needed. There will only be a few
> applications of Robotics or Cybernetics, and each one of those
applications
> can be given prerequisites directly from the basic techs. Just think of
all
> possible applications of these that you wanted to include. Every one of
> these, and I'm guessing that there won't be many, can easily be traced
back
> to the techs in the current chart. For Example: Factory Robots:
> Electronics 60%, Mechanics 60%, Industrial Engineering
> If you are thinking of something that cannot be treated as a simple
> application like this, let me know. Otherwise I must recommend leaving
> these techs out.

Actually I'm thinking of long term use as well as short term. True Factory
Robots can be treated as such, but for any future techs we will prob have
too many to treat as a simple tech application.

> By the way, Industrial Engineering should not have mechanics as a
> prerequisite at 0%. As I envisioned it, Industrial Engineering is not
just
> factories. It is any activity that increases productivity. Machines in
> factories do not appear until about Industrial Engineering 30%. Until
then,
> the tech should have no prerequisite, with economics as a helper.

Hmmm then what prerequisite would u have? Because Industial Engineering
didn't start at the dawn of time.

> A few other things:
> How do you get Alchemy, Wheel, Glassworking, and Networks? You have them
as
> the prerequisites for techs that provided these things in my model. I
would
> recommend that Alchemy be synonimous with Chemistry 10-25%, Wheel come
with
> Land Transportation 10%, Glassworking be Optics 1%, and Networks come with
> Communications 70%.

Well Alchemy is at chemistry 1%, Networks also requires computers 60%.

> To avoid future confusion, can 'Atomics' be changed to 'Atomic
> Applications'?

OK, but um what is this "future confusion"

> I would recommend that Government have Communication and Psychology as
> helper techs.

OK

> Is Masonry the replacement for Brick/Cement/Stone?

Yes because I thought about it and masonry does pretty much some up what
that is. Even today many people still use the term masons.

[Richard Bruns]

Actually I'm thinking of long term use as well as short term. True Factory
Robots can be treated as such, but for any future techs we will prob have
too many to treat as a simple tech application.
---
How many applications can you really think of for the near future? Far future is another tree entirely and I thnk we don't need to bother with it now.
---
Hmmm then what prerequisite would u have? Because Industial Engineering
didn't start at the dawn of time.
---
Yes it did. People have always been after new ways of making things. Anything like the most basic seperation of labor or the hiring of an apprentice falls under this tech. You need machines after 30%, but until then there are lots of ways to improve productivity.
---
OK, but um what is this "future confusion"
---
People on the forum, and the players.

--- New Mail ---
Subject: Demo 5

We should have no problem getting ready. All we have to do now is make a list of prerequisites for stuff that is likely to be in the demo.
Will there be different cultures in Demo 5? If there will be we need to make cultural units and buildings. Otherwise we just need to make cookie-cutter units like Spearmen.

--- New Mail ---

There are several problems with social tech prerequisites. The main one is that it, unlike normal techs, it requires acceptance by the people as well as knowledge. For example, most people would agree that Europeans have a higher Religion tech than they did in 1200 BC. Yet the people would not accept the idea of a holy war. So if we set the Holy War template tech to have a simple religion prerequisite,the civ would always have it unless they let the tech level go down. This is not realistic. We have to find out how to make social techs available only when there is both knowledge and acceptance.
Such a thing will have to be directly tied into the social model. As far as I know, nothing is set in stone regarding this model, so I can't set any system based on it. Also, I would probably change it if I tried to set a system.
So what I have here is simply a list of prerequisites. Having these techs gives the civ the option of doing something. The social conditions may or may not allow the thing to actually happen.

Abolishment of Slavery: Philosophy 50%, Religion 40%
Capitalism: Economics 40%
Centralized Government: Government 15%
Conscription: Government 1%, Tactics 1%
Despotism: Government 5%
Democracy: Government 60%, Philosophy 40%
Environmentalism: Ecology 50%
Feudalism: Government 30%
Fundamentalism: Governmment 30%, Religion 30%
Human Rights: Philosophy 40%, Religion 30%
Holy War: Religion 30%
Public Education: 30% in all core sciences, Government 50%
Religious Infrastructure: Religion 30%
Representative Government: Government 50%, Philosophy 30%
Rights for Labor Class: Philosophy 30%, Religion 20%
Standing Army:Government 1%, Tactics 1%

I really can't figure out how to do anything else. However, it seems reasonable to treat social techs like normal tech applications, except that the society must accept these based on the social model.

[Richard Bruns]

> Actually I'm thinking of long term use as well as short term. True
Factory
> Robots can be treated as such, but for any future techs we will prob have
> too many to treat as a simple tech application.
> ---
> How many applications can you really think of for the near future? Far
> future is another tree entirely and I thnk we don't need to bother with it
> now.

Actually we do. We shouldn't have two seperate norms for each. It will
make things more confusing for someone who might want to play both ways.
Also it will require more programing which isn't ness.

> Hmmm then what prerequisite would u have? Because Industial Engineering
> didn't start at the dawn of time.
> ---
> Yes it did. People have always been after new ways of making things.
> Anything like the most basic seperation of labor or the hiring of an
> apprentice falls under this tech. You need machines after 30%, but until
> then there are lots of ways to improve productivity.

Yes, but not "Idustrial" wise. Consider what that means.

--- New Mail ---

> We should have no problem getting ready. All we have to do now is make a
> list of prerequisites for stuff that is likely to be in the demo.
> Will there be different cultures in Demo 5? If there will be we need to
> make cultural units and buildings. Otherwise we just need to make
> cookie-cutter units like Spearmen.

Mark wants the models to be self sufficent first.

--- New Mail ---

> There are several problems with social tech prerequisites. The main
> one is that it, unlike normal techs, it requires acceptance by the people
as
> well as knowledge. For example, most people would agree that Europeans
have
> a higher Religion tech than they did in 1200 BC. Yet the people would not
> accept the idea of a holy war. So if we set the Holy War template tech to
> have a simple religion prerequisite,the civ would always have it unless
they
> let the tech level go down. This is not realistic. We have to find out
how
> to make social techs available only when there is both knowledge and
> acceptance.
> Such a thing will have to be directly tied into the social model.
> As far as I know, nothing is set in stone regarding this model, so I can't
> set any system based on it. Also, I would probably change it if I tried
to
> set a system.
> So what I have here is simply a list of prerequisites. Having these
> techs gives the civ the option of doing something. The social conditions
> may or may not allow the thing to actually happen.
>
> Abolishment of Slavery: Philosophy 50%, Religion 40%
> Capitalism: Economics 40%
> Centralized Government: Government 15%
> Conscription: Government 1%, Tactics 1%
> Despotism: Government 5%
> Democracy: Government 60%, Philosophy 40%
> Environmentalism: Ecology 50%
> Feudalism: Government 30%
> Fundamentalism: Governmment 30%, Religion 30%
> Human Rights: Philosophy 40%, Religion 30%
> Holy War: Religion 30%
> Public Education: 30% in all core sciences, Government 50%
> Religious Infrastructure: Religion 30%
> Representative Government: Government 50%, Philosophy 30%
> Rights for Labor Class: Philosophy 30%, Religion 20%
> Standing Army:Government 1%, Tactics 1%
>
> I really can't figure out how to do anything else. However, it seems
> reasonable to treat social techs like normal tech applications, except
that
> the society must accept these based on the social model.

Yea. We're not putting it in Demo 5. Also there's much more here not
listed, but like u said its complicated.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited February 01, 2000).]

[Richard Bruns]

Actually we do. We shouldn't have two seperate norms for each. It will
make things more confusing for someone who might want to play both ways.
Also it will require more programing which isn't ness.
---
There will not be two systems, just two different trees. I consider the far future to be like a mod pack. Most people agree that the game will end about the middle of next century.
---
Yes, but not "Idustrial" wise. Consider what that means.
---
"Industrial" is defined in the WWWWebster Dictionary as:

1 : of or relating to industry

and "Industry" is defined as:

2 a : systematic labor especially for some useful purpose or the creation of something of value b : a department or branch of a craft, art, business, or manufacture; especially : one that employs a large personnel and capital especially in manufacturing c : a distinct group of productive or profit-making enterprises d : manufacturing activity as a whole

The tech includes any way of making this labor and activity more efficient.

--- New Mail ---

Mark wants the models to be self sufficent first.
---
Well, the tech tree has to lead to things that other aspects of the game use. Otherwise there is no reason to research anything. At the very minimum we should have a tech tree that leads to about a dozen new things that help the player.

--- New Mail ---

I think we should post the tech model. Currently few people even know the basic structure of the thing. I have updated the chart you sent me with all the changes we agreed to. As our only current disagreement is about something that Demo 5 will not even think about getting to, we should be able to post the model under a new thread, Demo 5 Tech.


[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited February 01, 2000).]

[Richard Bruns]

> I think we should post the tech model. Currently few people even know the
> basic structure of the thing. I have updated the chart you sent me with
all
> the changes we agreed to. As our only current disagreement is about
> something that Demo 5 will not even think about getting to, we should be
> able to post the model under a new thread, Demo 5 Tech.


I wanted to put the application techs and items/imrpov on there.

--- New Mail ---

> Actually we do. We shouldn't have two seperate norms for each. It will
> make things more confusing for someone who might want to play both ways.
> Also it will require more programing which isn't ness.
> ---
> There will not be two systems, just two different trees. I consider the
far
> future to be like a mod pack. Most people agree that the game will end
> about the middle of next century.

Actually it will be implimented at the same time. It will simply have an
on/off switch for no future techs, near future, far future. These will all
be shipped with the first one.

BTW we need to put items/improv on there.

items-specific objects such as weapons, statues, gadgets, etc
improv-structures, or things that can be physically seen that improv a civ
such as irrigation

[Richard Bruns]

I wanted to put the application techs and items/imrpov on there.
---
The problem is that we do not know exactly what improvements to put in. Other people need to send us lists of what they need, and they seem to need to know about the tech tree before they can give us those lists. We asked for lists a while ago and haven't gotten them. If people know that we have a completed tech tree structure that they can fit any item into, they will be more likely to send complete lists.